On 02/08/12 20:50, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
How things are defined the HTML 5 Draft specification
is relevant only to HTML 5; since we are discussing
documents that specify a DTD in their DOCTYPE directive,
that clearly rules out documents coded to the HTML 5
Draft specification.
No, it defines ho
Rob Crowther wrote:
> On 02/08/12 19:40, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>>
>> Exactly as you meant it in your earlier message :
>>
> I meant it as defined in the HTML5 specification. You're apparently
> disallowing that, so I wanted to know what your definition was.
How things are defined the HTML 5 Dr
On 02/08/12 19:40, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
Exactly as you meant it in your earlier message :
I meant it as defined in the HTML5 specification. You're apparently
disallowing that, so I wanted to know what your definition was.
The specification for the parsing process for HTML 4.01 is directly
Rob Crowther wrote:
OK, then define "parsed and rendered correctly".
Exactly as you meant it in your earlier message :
whether or not a browser will correctly parse, interpret or display
it.
Or, put another way: where is the parsing process for a text file
conforming to HTML4's DTD def
On 02/08/12 18:49, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
that if a page validates against the DTD given in
the DOCTYPE directive, then it is more likely to
be parsed and rendered correctly than if it does not.
OK, then define "parsed and rendered correctly". Or, put another way:
where is the parsing process f
Rob Crowther wrote:> On 02/08/2012 17:02, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>>
>> I think that is an over-simplification, and one that is misleading
>> if it gets into the wrong hands.
>
> Not really, otherwise tricks like having a DOCTYPE without a DTD
> wouldn't work.
I respectfully disagree. My assertio
On 02/08/2012 17:02, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
I think that is an over-simplification, and one that is misleading
if it gets into the wrong hands.
Not really, otherwise tricks like having a DOCTYPE without a DTD
wouldn't work.
The problem is that different browsers (or
even different versions o
On 8/1/12 8:39 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
At 16:57 -0400 on 08/01/2012, Tedd Sperling wrote about Re: [css-d] on
html and css versions:
What is wrong with using?
Sure it doesn't have a *real* DTD, but the W3C validator does somehow
validate pages that have this DOCTYPE declar
Rob Crowther wrote:
Browsers have never used DOCTYPES, therefore the validation of
whether or not a document conforms (or not) to a DOCTYPE has no
impact on whether or not a browser will correctly parse, interpret
or display it.
I think that is an over-simplification, and one that is mislead
On 02/08/2012 04:39, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
First is that while browsers may not actually use the referenced DTD
(the http... clause), they do parse the HTML based on the DOCTYPE html
PUBLIC... clause and treat the HTML differently based on what you declare.
No, they don't. It is used purel
On 02/08/2012 10:31, Hakan Kirkan wrote:
Using breaks Canvas in IE8
IE8 doesn't support canvas.
Rob
__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-d
2012-08-02 4:11, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
Le 2 août 2012 à 06:03, Josh Rehman a écrit :
And, actually the uppercase DOCTYPE is important as
I've run into problems with the lowercase version in some browsers.
That sounds weird. Can you clarify which browsers are affected ?
By XML rules,
2012-08-02 12:31, Hakan Kirkan wrote:
Using breaks Canvas in IE8
If it does, that would not be a CSS issue, would it?
Jukka
__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
Lis
Using breaks Canvas in IE8
--
Hakan Kirkan
IT Manager
Dominor LLC / Miami
http://dominor.com
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
> At 16:57 -0400 on 08/01/2012, Tedd Sperling wrote about Re: [css-d] on
> html and css versions:
>
>
At 16:57 -0400 on 08/01/2012, Tedd Sperling wrote about Re: [css-d]
on html and css versions:
What is wrong with using?
Sure it doesn't have a *real* DTD, but the W3C validator does
somehow validate pages that have this DOCTYPE declaration, right?
So, there must be some sort of *stan
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
> Le 2 août 2012 à 06:03, Josh Rehman a écrit :
>
>> And, actually the uppercase DOCTYPE is important as
>> I've run into problems with the lowercase version in some browsers.
>
> That sounds weird. Can you clarify which browsers are affe
Le 2 août 2012 à 06:03, Josh Rehman a écrit :
> And, actually the uppercase DOCTYPE is important as
> I've run into problems with the lowercase version in some browsers.
That sounds weird. Can you clarify which browsers are affected ?
Philippe
--
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com/
___
On 01.08.2012 22:57, Tedd Sperling wrote:
What is wrong with using?
Sure it doesn't have a *real* DTD, but the W3C validator does somehow validate pages that
have this DOCTYPE declaration, right? So, there must be some sort of *standards* it
validates contents against, right? Where/what is t
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Tedd Sperling wrote:
> Unfortunately/fortunately there are many choices, for example:
>
> http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
>
> What is a novice to do? Can the choice be simple?
>
> What is wrong with using?
>
>
Nothing. Use that. And, actually the
On Aug 1, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Georg wrote:
> On 01.08.2012 14:41, Tedd Sperling wrote:
>>
>> As for "good practice", using a tiny amount of code to accomplish something
>> is better than using more than what's needed.
>
> If you say so :-)
>
> regards
>Georg
Well... I'm just simple tha
On 01.08.2012 14:41, Tedd Sperling wrote:
As for "good practice", using a tiny amount of code to accomplish something is
better than using more than what's needed.
If you say so :-)
regards
Georg
__
css-discuss [css
On Aug 1, 2012, at 4:56 AM, Georg wrote:
> My point is that to imply anything by simply presenting a tiny bit of code,
> is not good practice. It does not really tell much to those who don't know it
> all beforehand - and they don't have to be told (hopefully). The OP's basic
> questions indic
2012-08-01 4:16, Georg wrote:
On 01.08.2012 00:14, Tedd Sperling wrote:
This works for me, my students, and W3C validation:
---
Since that only contains an HTML5 "standards mode" trigger (for better
than v.5.5 CSS support in IE/win *) and no DTD to check markup variant
agai
On 01.08.2012 00:14, Tedd Sperling wrote:
This works for me, my students, and W3C validation:
---
Since that only contains an HTML5 "standards mode" trigger (for better
than v.5.5 CSS support in IE/win *) and no DTD to check markup variant
against, it might be interes
On Jul 31, 2012, at 4:18 PM, John D wrote:
>> What html dtd is recommended to reach the most users? HTML 4.01
>> Transitional -- and CSS2?
This works for me, my students, and W3C validation:
---
Your title
---
Cheers,
tedd
_
> What html dtd is recommended to reach the most users? HTML 4.01
> Transitional -- and CSS2?
>
I use this as my starting point for all my pages these days:
Untitled 1
Good luck.
On 31.07.2012 10:59, Gergely Buday wrote:
What html dtd is recommended to reach the most users? HTML 4.01
Transitional -- and CSS2?
Markup: the Stricter the better. Markup in accordance with HTML 4.01
Strict works fine in around 99.99% of browsers _in use_ today.
HTML5 using new elements may
Hi there,
this is not strictly a css question but closely related.
What html dtd is recommended to reach the most users? HTML 4.01
Transitional -- and CSS2?
- Gergely
__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-d
28 matches
Mail list logo
